OKC Mayor Race 2014

[soonerguru]

FWIW, less than 2 cents, I interpreted the transit part of the MAPS 3 vote as a larger, more regional-focused bus system and then once enough funds were secured through a regional tax, we would have commuter rail, then a streetcar. Bus improvements first, commuter rail second, streetcar third. I never thought we would be investing in the streetcar without the other two first. I also assumed that the MAPS funds were to pay for the capital items and equipment only (buses, trains, stops, hubs, etc.) and the regional tax would be in place to pay to operate all of it. I think this was why many voted for MAPS 3 and for Cornett to see it through. Now that I see that the order of things appears to have shifted and priority is with the downtown streetcar, I probably won't support Cornett again. I know RTD2 is underway, but last I heard, it is moving at a snail's pace with Cornett chairing again.

Whatever regional tax or funding mechanism for OKC and the region would be separate from MAPS. The point of MAPS is we build it with the MAPS tax.

I share your desire to see improvement in OKC proper for buses and a better regional system. But the MAPS literature was very clear we were voting for a downtown streetcar.

[soonerguru]

Yes, I am. It was the Cornett/Thompson tandem that did so, though, not just the mayor.

Playing devil's advocate here: what politician -- or PR professional -- wouldn't try to influence what is published in the media? Isn't this standard operating procedure? Along the same lines, what ultimately is or is not published in a news medium is determined by the publishers and editors -- not an external person.

"Working the refs" is pretty common for public officials. In the end, though, it is up to the news medium to determine what is published or broadcast.

[Frustratedoptimist]

Sorry guys, I really didn't intend to restart the streetcar debate. And I should have been more clear. It wasn't the ballot that brought me to that interpretation. It was the several meetings I attended where the overriding vision for regional transit improvements and MAPS were openly discussed simultaneously. The ballot did not specify bus improvements but on more than one occasion, Cornett and others verbally agreed that the streetcar system would not be successful without connections to good bus services and commuter rail. I have always been 100 percent behind the streetcar and once I heard them commit to improved, regional bus outside of MAPS, I was more emphatic in my support. His mistake may not have been intentional, after all, it was election time, but is was misleading.

[BoulderSooner]

what meetings?

[Doug Loudenback]

Playing devil's advocate here: what politician -- or PR professional -- wouldn't try to influence what is published in the media? Isn't this standard operating procedure? Along the same lines, what ultimately is or is not published in a news medium is determined by the publishers and editors -- not an external person.

"Working the refs" is pretty common for public officials. In the end, though, it is up to the news medium to determine what is published or broadcast.

Do you mean to say, Soonerguru, that you think that it would be OK for the mayor to pick up his phone and call David Thompson and suggest/tell/recommend to him that an Oklahoman article should be nixed during the time period of the MAPS 3 campaign? Recall that Thompson was publisher or CEO of the Oklahoman, and that Thompson was the leader of the MAPS 3 campaign, he being president of the Greater OKC Chamber. Is such a practice OK with you, or consistent with fair play (not to mention full reporting by the Oklahoman), or governmental transparency during the MAPS 3 campaign?

During the MAPS 3 campaign, some Oklahoman reporters were told to step back and not cover the MAPS 3 campaign at all -- they were told to zip it, keep out and keep their mouths shut; some other non-inquiring reporters were allowed if not encouraged to write MAPS 3 cool-aid articles. I personally know of one Oklahoman reporter who submitted an article for publication that was substantially modified by his editor after it was submitted (this reporter no longer works for the Oklahoman) and the modified article was thereafter published but still under the reporter's byline even though the published article's changes were made without his consent or prior knowledge.

You are certainly correct that the buck stops with David Thompson, former Oklahoman CEO and president of the Chamber, who was amply pliable to the requests/whatever of the mayor. My thesis is that they were in league with each other, and as such were both equally culpable. My thesis is that the mayor and Thompson worked together hand in glove.

If I am correct, are you good with that sort of thing vis a vis an ends-justifies-means approach? Even if not good with that sort of thing, since you've said your mind is already made up, I suppose that you don't think that this sort of thing actually matters, one way or another.

Correct?

[betts]

Doug, the problem is that there are only two choices for mayor. Voting for "none of the above" takes the decision out of one's hands. So, you don't necessarily have to be "good with" a particular behavior or action. They have to be weighed against behaviors of the opponent.

[soonerguru]

Do you mean to say, Soonerguru, that you think that it would be OK for the mayor to pick up his phone and call David Thompson and suggest/tell/recommend to him that an Oklahoman article should be nixed during the time period of the MAPS 3 campaign? Recall that Thompson was publisher or CEO of the Oklahoman, and that Thompson was the leader of the MAPS 3 campaign, he being president of the Greater OKC Chamber. Is such a practice OK with you, or consistent with fair play (not to mention full reporting by the Oklahoman), or governmental transparency during the MAPS 3 campaign?

During the MAPS 3 campaign, some Oklahoman reporters were told to step back and not cover the MAPS 3 campaign at all -- they were told to zip it, keep out and keep their mouths shut; some other non-inquiring reporters were allowed if not encouraged to write MAPS 3 cool-aid articles. I personally know of one Oklahoman reporter who submitted an article for publication that was substantially modified by his editor after it was submitted (this reporter no longer works for the Oklahoman) and the modified article was thereafter published but still under the reporter's byline even though the published article's changes were made without his consent or prior knowledge.

You are certainly correct that the buck stops with David Thompson, former Oklahoman CEO and president of the Chamber, who was amply pliable to the requests/whatever of the mayor. My thesis is that they were in league with each other, and as such were both equally culpable. My thesis is that the mayor and Thompson worked together hand in glove.

If I am correct, are you good with that sort of thing vis a vis an ends-justifies-means approach? Even if not good with that sort of thing, since you've said your mind is already made up, I suppose that you don't think that this sort of thing actually matters, one way or another.

Correct?

I understand what you're saying. You obviously have information that I don't about the matter. Perhaps you think me a bit cynical to not be as bothered by it as you are. I don't really know the story / stories in question, so it's hard for me to relate to it in the way you do.

I think it is certainly fair to question the impartiality of a publication when the Publisher is on the committee to get a vote passed, but this happens all the time (not saying it's right). In the end, the issue of journalistic integrity is the responsibility of the publication, though, not the person who would seek to craft favorable coverage for his / her cause.

Assuming what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, it doesn't change the substance of my opinion: Mayor Cornett has done a great job and understands the value of MAPS to this community. His opponent apparently does not value MAPS in the same way and has suggested we have a cafeteria plan after the vote to determine which projects move forward and in which manner. This is unacceptable and patronizing, in my opinion, and is potentially damaging to future MAPS votes.

I respect your willingness to withhold your support for a candidate until you have weighed the criteria that will influence your vote. That is your right and I completely support it.

For me, the matter is very simple. I'm going with Cornett because he's done a good job as mayor and I trust him to complete MAPS as promised to the voters, warts and all.

[Doug Loudenback]

Thanks, soonerguru and betts. If a person's mind is made up before the campaign even begins, much less runs its course, I suppose that little reason exists to engage in discussion on the matter ... I use the term "discussion" in the academic sense in which all relevant information is discussed by people with open minds and considered before conclusions are reached, as opposed to "debate" wherein sides are taken and arguments are presented to support one's position) on the matter.

My intention is to hear both of the candidates out and then decide. I will certainly not be sitting on my hands come election day and will vote for someone.

[Spartan]

Do you mean to say, Soonerguru, that you think that it would be OK for the mayor to pick up his phone and call David Thompson and suggest/tell/recommend to him that an Oklahoman article should be nixed during the time period of the MAPS 3 campaign? Recall that Thompson was publisher or CEO of the Oklahoman, and that Thompson was the leader of the MAPS 3 campaign, he being president of the Greater OKC Chamber. Is such a practice OK with you, or consistent with fair play (not to mention full reporting by the Oklahoman), or governmental transparency during the MAPS 3 campaign?

During the MAPS 3 campaign, some Oklahoman reporters were told to step back and not cover the MAPS 3 campaign at all -- they were told to zip it, keep out and keep their mouths shut; some other non-inquiring reporters were allowed if not encouraged to write MAPS 3 cool-aid articles. I personally know of one Oklahoman reporter who submitted an article for publication that was substantially modified by his editor after it was submitted (this reporter no longer works for the Oklahoman) and the modified article was thereafter published but still under the reporter's byline even though the published article's changes were made without his consent or prior knowledge.

You are certainly correct that the buck stops with David Thompson, former Oklahoman CEO and president of the Chamber, who was amply pliable to the requests/whatever of the mayor. My thesis is that they were in league with each other, and as such were both equally culpable. My thesis is that the mayor and Thompson worked together hand in glove.

If I am correct, are you good with that sort of thing vis a vis an ends-justifies-means approach? Even if not good with that sort of thing, since you've said your mind is already made up, I suppose that you don't think that this sort of thing actually matters, one way or another.

Correct?

Um... Badgering the witness?

[Spartan]

FWIW, less than 2 cents, I interpreted the transit part of the MAPS 3 vote as a larger, more regional-focused bus system and then once enough funds were secured through a regional tax, we would have commuter rail, then a streetcar. Bus improvements first, commuter rail second, streetcar third. I never thought we would be investing in the streetcar without the other two first. I also assumed that the MAPS funds were to pay for the capital items and equipment only (buses, trains, stops, hubs, etc.) and the regional tax would be in place to pay to operate all of it. I think this was why many voted for MAPS 3 and for Cornett to see it through. Now that I see that the order of things appears to have shifted and priority is with the downtown streetcar, I probably won't support Cornett again. I know RTD2 is underway, but last I heard, it is moving at a snail's pace with Cornett chairing again.

I want what you're smoking

[soonerguru]

Thanks, soonerguru and betts. If a person's mind is made up before the campaign even begins, much less runs its course, I suppose that little reason exists to engage in discussion on the matter ... I use the term "discussion" in the academic sense in which all relevant information is discussed by people with open minds and considered before conclusions are reached, as opposed to "debate" wherein sides are taken and arguments are presented to support one's position) on the matter.

My intention is to hear both of the candidates out and then decide. I will certainly not be sitting on my hands come election day and will vote for someone.

Thank you for your kind reply. Sometimes the availability of evidence is so abundant that one can make a quick decision. As for me, Shadid's position on the streetcar and his opaque positions on MAPS are a deal killer for me. I understand you support the streetcar and MAPS as well, but perhaps that's not as compelling to you in informing your voting opinion as it is to me.

Please don't conclude you're dealing with "closed minds." That is a bit of a reach. Consider that you're dealing with "confident supporters" instead. Interesting how one can shade an argument with the crafting of language.

[Doug Loudenback]

Thank you for your kind reply. Sometimes the availability of evidence is so abundant that one can make a quick decision. As for me, Shadid's position on the streetcar and his opaque positions on MAPS are a deal killer for me. I understand you support the streetcar and MAPS as well, but perhaps that's not as compelling to you in informing your voting opinion as it is to me.

Please don't conclude you're dealing with "closed minds." That is a bit of a reach. Consider that you're dealing with "confident supporters" instead. Interesting how one can shade an argument with the crafting of language.

Indeed, yet I suppose that's exactly what you have just done. To say your mind is made up (as I think you did ... you have made a "decision," you said) but also to say at the same time that you may not yet have a closed mind (the same being a "a bit of a reach," you said), sounds like something less than a final decision. Juxtaposing your remarks, side by side, presents something of an interesting crafting of language ... wouldn't you say?

Well, then, and in any event, I gather from your quoted comment that you mean to say that you actually DO have an "open mind" about your vote, even if it's only slightly ajar. If that's what you mean to say, that's a welcome interpretation and understanding of your prior remarks, or at least it is to me.

I don't own even a reasonably decent crystal ball, even if I have a fair collection of many beautiful such things. The problem is that, as of today, none of them have yet accurately predicted the future. Maybe in the next shop I step into I will find the one that actually does that.

Until then and as for now, as to the future, I don't yet know how the candidates will formally or informally present themselves to the voters or how they will answer any "tough" questions, or even if either either of them will attempt to do so.

As I already said, I will wait and see.

[CaptDave]

Yeah - all of MAPS is for downtown and outer neighborhoods get nothing. Wait - what? Sidewalks going in at NW95? Oh......

Sidewalks among first tangible signs of MAPS 3 progress in Oklahoma City | NewsOK.com

[soonerguru]

Indeed, yet I suppose that's exactly what you have just done. To say your mind is made up (as I think you did ... you have made a "decision," you said) but also to say at the same time that you may not yet have a closed mind (the same being a "a bit of a reach," you said), sounds like something less than a final decision. Juxtaposing your remarks, side by side, presents something of an interesting crafting of language ... wouldn't you say?

Well, then, and in any event, I gather from your quoted comment that you mean to say that you actually DO have an "open mind" about your vote, even if it's only slightly ajar. If that's what you mean to say, that's a welcome interpretation and understanding of your prior remarks, or at least it is to me.

I don't own even a reasonably decent crystal ball, even if I have a fair collection of many beautiful such things. The problem is that, as of today, none of them have yet accurately predicted the future. Maybe in the next shop I step into I will find the one that actually does that.

Until then and as for now, as to the future, I don't yet know how the candidates will formally or informally present themselves to the voters or how they will answer any "tough" questions, or even if either either of them will attempt to do so.

As I already said, I will wait and see.

You don't? If you read back a couple of pages in this thread, you will see how the candidates both formally introduced themselves. Cornett had a folksy, nice, uplifting video introduction. Shadid had an agitated rant in the comment section of the Daily Oklahoman (a condensed version of a broader rant on Facebook).

The introductions have already happened.

[krisb]

Yeah - all of MAPS is for downtown and outer neighborhoods get nothing. Wait - what? Sidewalks going in at NW95? Oh......

Sidewalks among first tangible signs of MAPS 3 progress in Oklahoma City | NewsOK.com

The voters were promised 70 miles. We'll be lucky to get 40 in MAPS 3. But the convention center moved forward in the schedule.

[soonerguru]

The voters were promised 70 miles. We'll be lucky to get 40 in MAPS 3. But the convention center moved forward in the schedule.

So Ed's solution is to scrap the streetcar? Makes sense.

For the record, the initial MAPS projects weren't all perfect either, but things turned out pretty good in the end.

I for one am thrilled we are getting 40 miles of new sidewalks.

[ljbab728]

And how many on this list are downtown?

None, I'm thinking.

N Western Avenue between Hefner and Britton roads

• N MacArthur Boulevard between Wilshire Boulevard and Britton Road

• NW 63 between N Meridian Avenue and Ann Arbor Terrace

• Classen Boulevard between NW 34 and NW 35 and between NW 48 and NW 49

• N May Avenue between Hefner and Quail Creek roads

• N Pennsylvania Avenue between Memorial Road and NW 122

• N Meridian between NW 63 and NW 50

• S Western between SW 104 and SW 98

• S May between SW 59 and SW 61 and between SW 80 and SW 89

• S Pennsylvania between SW 96 and SW 104

• S Pennsylvania between SW 59 and SW 74

• S Pennsylvania between SW 77 and SW 84

• S May between SW 29 and SW 59

[CaptDave]

And how many on this list are downtown?

None, I'm thinking.

Pretty sure ALL of the trail extensions are out in the "neighborhoods" too.

[Urban Pioneer]

So Ed's solution is to scrap the streetcar?

LOL. Ongoing line of thought at the OKC Talk event tonight; one couldn't make up half of this "stuff" if he or she tried.

[BoulderSooner]

The voters were promised 70 miles. We'll be lucky to get 40 in MAPS 3. But the convention center moved forward in the schedule.

the CC moving forward or back had 0.00% to do with the drop in sidewalk miles .....

[krisb]

the CC moving forward or back had 0.00% to do with the drop in sidewalk miles .....

But it does reveal where the priorities are doesn't it?

[rcjunkie]

But it does reveal where the priorities are doesn't it?

Priorities = build a convention center that will bring in people, people spend money, money builds more sidewalks, sounds like a no-brainer to me!!

[LuccaBrasi]

I recently saw this video from Velocity about the Urban Award and can't imagine Shadid in this, or any of the other national videos, TV shows, and interviews that have featured Cornett representing our city in such a polished and professional manner. Cornett's national reputation and overall style and charisma goes a long way with enhancing outsiders perceptions of OKC. Those perceptions are obviously aided by the momentum we've been enjoying are will continue to enjoy as long as he is mayor. This city has enjoyed two decades of pulling on the same rope in the same direction, if his competitor were to be elected, a tug-of-war would soon emerge and the momentum would soon dwindle.

VeloCity Vol. 7

[krisb]

Nearly 1,000 people showed up for the Shadid rally tonight. I was inspired by his inclusive message and the diversity of the people represented.

[Bellaboo]

Nearly 1,000 people showed up for the Shadid rally tonight. I was inspired by his inclusive message and the diversity of the people represented.

Talk is Cheap. His devisive actions on the council speak louder than the hyperbole of words at a rally.

I'd like to see them debate, it would be very one sided in Mayor Mick's favor. Experience counts.